--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "Adam" <s3057043@...> wrote:

>
> --- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "ione1608" <aiwa1608@>

wrote:

> >
> > --- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "Adam" <s3057043@>

wrote:

> > >
> > > > I set the AUTOCOMMIT property of the transaction to TRUE and

it

> > > > works. When the second user wants to open the same record

the

> > first
> > > > user already opened, I give a message that the record is in

use

> > and
> > > > disable the save-functionality. I administer who locks a

record

> > in a
> > > > separate table. This solution works, but how do you pro's
> > consider
> > > > this? A dirty solution???
> > >
> > > Absolutely a dirty solution. If it works with AutoCommit

(which is

> > just
> > > an implicit commit then start transaction after each statement

is

> > run),
> > > then it has to be a transaction isolation issue.
> > >
> >
> > Ooopsss, so this is a wrong choice.
> > What is the right setting for the isolation level? I tried RU

(Read

> > uncommitted) and that seemed to work to.
>
> Read uncommitted (dirty reads) is even worse. It is a hack used by
> primitive DBMS to actually allow any sort of reporting on a OLTP
> system (grabs tin foil hat and dives under table as black

helicopters

> swarm overhead).
>
> I don't think read uncommitted even works in Firebird, so I am not
> sure what your ODBC is doing to simulate it.
>
> I don't use ODBC so I use mostly snapshot (repeatable read) or
> occasionally read committed depending on what I am doing.
>

After some testing, I discovered what Read Uncommitted did. I
stopped using it right away.
I set the NOWAIT option in the ODBC setting, and that seems to work.